The court's decision was influenced by the physical non-existence of the disputed land, the possession of the allotted land by the respondents, and the report confirming the absence of the disputed land at the site.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Vide the present petition, petitioners seek directions for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 67/02-CA, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), titled as Ram Chander & Another vs. Dharam Singh & Others, whereby Gaon Sabha (village Khera Khurd) lands meant for common purpose Chargah Maveshian (Pasture) bearing Khasra Nos. 51/22 min. South (1-13), 51/23 (4-08) & 78/20/1(1-03) allotted to respondent No.8 and bearing Khasra No. 51/17 min. West (1-05) and 51/18 (5-0) allotted to respondent No.7 respectively situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Khera Khurd. Further seek directions to withdraw the said land from the aforesaid respondents and return to respondent No.5 Gaon Sabha.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 had no right to have the allotment of Gaon Sabha land which was developed by respondent Nos. 1 and 6 as Forest/Horticulture Plantation in lieu of residential plot. The land in question was allotted based upon a false pretext that the land was not available in the Lal Dora. The land allotted to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 outside Lal Dora (extended) is more precious than the land of Extended Lal Dora as per the market value. Vide impugned award dated 17.08.2007, Gaon Sabha land bearing Khasra No. 51/22 min. South (1-13), 51/23 (4- 8) and 78/20/1 (1-3) was allotted to respondent No.8 and Gaon Sabha land bearing Khasra Nos. 51/17 min. West (1-05) and 51/18 (5-00) was allotted to respondent No. 7 on the back of Gaon Sabha. The aforesaid chunk of Gaon Sabha land meant for Charagah/ Maveshian Plantation was allotted to the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in lieu of residential plot bearing Khasra Nos. 460/2 (0-7) and 460/1 (0-7). The proposal report dated 25.08.2000 is contrary to the Consolidation Act, Rules and Scheme as no agricultural land in lieu of Lal Dora (Extended) can be allotted to any right holder in any manner whatsoever that too in the absence of another Bhumidar (Gaon Sabha Village Khera Khurd). Thus, conversion of community land into the individual use is contrary to the interest of village community at large and the same is against the Consolidation Act, Rules and Scheme. Accordingly, total land measuring13-05 biswas in lieu of 0-14 biswas smells extraneous reasons and considerations. Thus, the said allotment is in violation of Consolidation Act, Rules and Scheme, is liable to be set aside being illegal, unlawful as has no sanction of law.

3. Vide the impugned order, deficiency of 13 bighas 9 biswas had been caused to the respondent No.5 Gaon Sabha and since the consolidation proceedings have already been consigned to the record, in the absence of direction of the learned Financial Commissioner with regard to deficiency caused in the Khata of respondent No.5 Gaon Sabha, impugned order is arbitrary, unlawful, illegal and not sustainable.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that Khasra No. 88/24 being in Gaon Sabha (Play Ground) has been left out from allotment to the individuals being common use for public, but unfortunately, subject land measuring 13 bighas 5 biswas meant for Chargah Maveshian (Pasture Land) for the common use of villagers had been withdrawn and that too causing deficiency to the respondent No.5 Gaon Sabha.

5. Learned counsel further submits that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have been illegally and unlawfully benefited by the benefits of consolidation of which they were not entitled to and that the benefit is more than twenty times of 0-14 biswas land and the allotted land is more valuable than the Lal Dora land.

6. However, the Financial Commissioner ignored the valuable rights of the respondent No.5 Gaon Sabha and as per Section 42 of the Act; there was no notification under Section 36 of the Act for the said land.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appeari